Messages - brewha

Those of who plan to actually have a career when you graduate, I suggest you keep negative opinions to yourself. If you hate a particular type of person, keep it to yourself. I applied to Thomas M. Cooley, and Widener. It doesn't matter where you go if you have talent, and have a workable plan. Unless you're in what is considered the top 10 - 20 then rankings are irrelevant. FYI: I accepted the offer from the Dickinson School of Law at Penn State.

You would have really driven home your point if you accepted the offer from Cooley. Now, I pass off your words as mere bitchy gibberish.

Uh, how would you have an erie question on that essay? It was in a state court...

Uh, you can have an erie analysis on any question of any exam, no matter what the subject. Sure, you may not get any credit for such an analysis... but I like to think that the professors appreciate the extent to which I will go to remind them of the wonders of classic phrases such as "purposefully availed" or "stream of commerce."

Ex. On my legal ethics exam yesterday, I made sure to incorporate an erie analysis. The fact pattern was essentially this: Man, a criminal defendant, threatens to choke the prosecutor to death the next day in court and tells this to his lawyer; what ethical obligations does the public defender have?

I began my analysis with the following exchange: Professor xxxxxx, the only obligation of any kind that you need to worry about is your obligation to give me an A. That said, the Lake Erie case clearly controls here... (Followed by a brilliant discussion).

1. People who prefer in-class, timed exams (untimed? wtf?)2. People who have never had a take-home exam, and think they'd like one.3. d**mn, dirty, liars.

I fall in cateogry 1. Two of my three exams this semster were take-home, and they were hellish. Best to go in and get them over with instead of wasting an entire day on an exam. Take-home exams are an equalizer for poor students, and a source of obsessive anxiety for good students. Not to mention the issues of transportation, home-life (children, if you have them), making sure your pritner doesn't break down etc.

No one writes a great, polished, ready-to-publish essay in a three-hour in-class exam. But that's the point. Everyone's on a level playing field. Go in, get it done, and have the rest of the day to drink... er... study.

Loki, I would be doing both of us a disservice if I didn't point out that there is a fourth category of people in this world: (4) Those who follow Norse Mythology. http://www.bifrost.org.uk/myths.html

I'm fairly certain this group would prefer to role play their exams at the end of the semester.

I wear blue shirts all the time. I've even worn a lavender with a gray suit before. looked awesome. In my opinion, if you know how to do colors well, then do it. You will stand out a bit and look more confident than the standard white shirt and red tie crowd. I have gotten SEVERAL compliments about my dress and comments such as the one I just said. My fav. interview suit is a dark charcoal gray with thin alternating pinstripes of cream and a burnt orange/copper color. I wear it with a medium blue shirt and a tie that has some a little bit of blue, little bit of cream, and that same burnt orange/copper color.

Be sure you have a good answer to "What will you bring to our organization?" It's another one of those BS interview questions that some people still like to ask (along with the aforementioend "Name your weaknesses").

Most interviews I've had, were more like pleasant conversations than interviews. They go along the lines of "Oh, I see you worked here-or-there, tell me about what you did," or "That's an impressive award; how did you qualify, or why did you win it?" (I'm a 0L, but all my post-undergrad work expereince has been in the legal field, so all my interviews have been conducted by attorneys).

Time to drop the lawschoolnumbers on your signature. No one on this side of the board cares what you did in undergrad or where you applied/accepted/rejected. That is for the kiddie board.

Assuming I'm able to bring up my GPA to a level that will allow me to stay, I think I will still be withdrawing from school.

That makes absolutely no sense. If your only options are (1) Getting kicked out b/c of terrible grades, and (2) Getting grades barely good enough to stay in school, but withdrawing, it seems you will be leaving no matter what.

Also, making the assumption that you will even be able to bring your grades up is, many times, misguided. I wouldn't be so harsh, but your entire post wreaked of one who was bashing law school because he/she wasn't able to do well.